Hacker News Reader

Comment by kcl | Hacker News Reader

In 2010 I wanted an iPhone Twitter client with a nice UI and no ads, so I paid $2.99 for Tweetie 2. This was after I bought Tweetie 1 for $2.99. Tweetie 2 wasn't a free upgrade.

In 2011, after acquiring Tweetie 2 and making it free, Twitter adds paid advertisements and wrecks the UI.

View on HN

Reminds me of many Android apps: instead of selling the app on the Marketplace the developers opt to include advertisements which cheapen the overall experience.

Angry Birds is a great example. I would gladly pay the piddly .99c they ask on iOS, if given the choice! The iOS version is paid only and ad free, while the Android version is free only, with intrusive ads.

Which are easy to bypass btw - just turn off data connection while you play it.

Android sounds like a great experience.

What does this have to do with Android? The issue is the application.

The issue is the market. From what I've seen and read, Android owners are less likely to pay for apps, so devs have to resort to advertising to get their revenues.

That's the perception, and I presume that's why Rovio is taking this tactic. Is it true, though, for them? My impression is that they're testing the advertising method. If anyone could sell a ton of Android apps, they could.

Pretty much any Android phone owner interesting in downloading Angry Birds would be willing to pay .99c for it. It's a shame they won't treat Android like iOS in this respect - a must-have app is exactly what the Android Market needs. Get people into the Market with a serious intent to obtain a specific app, and they'll set up their account and payment method, paving the way for future purchases.

Rovio could be priming the marketplace in general and giving it a big boost. Instead, they're giving Android users a 2nd rate user experience, as well as contributing to the perception that you can't sell apps on Android.

They don't have to resort to advertising so much as choosing the advertising model because it yields more revenue. At least for the specific case of Angry Birds.

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/03/angry-birds-android-1-m...

The issue is the Android platform. The Android market is very difficult to sell apps on because the "open" Android platform makes it ridiculously easy to pirate apps.

Most good applications are available for free on Android, but not on iOS.

You should try an Android phone before making conclusions.

What part of the parent comment lead you to any conclusion about Android's user experience?

I think he was just talking about a way to get rid of ads in games that have ads. Presumably the same would work for iOS games that use ads as well.

Yeah it is for the people who are not bent on bashing anything and everything that doesn't come from 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino CA. ;)

from my experience you can only play 1 level before it requires you to be connected to a network

Not on my Xoom.

I would email Dick and ask for a special ad-free version that goes out to all paid Tweetie customers.

Unfortunately, that isn't possible in the AppStore, afaik. You can sell to everyone, or give away for free, but not to a limited group (beyond the 100 promo codes thing.)

The app is free for everyone, but previous Tweetie owners could have their ads disabled.

The Tweetie app "upgraded" to Twitter for iPhone; they're treated as the same app by the App Store. I don't think it's possible to tell apart upgraders from new users. (I paid for Tweetie)

It could be, all they needed to do was record the first time the user ran the app. That would get most people.

I'm sure they have a list of email addresses that have paid for Tweetie (or the ability to acquire it). Given this, it seems possible that they could do something to disable it in the app.

No, they don't. Apple keeps all that information from developers. (By the way, that's the same information publishers are clamoring for).

I didn't realize Apple kept that from you, but OK. Alternative. Twitter clients normally send their user-agent as part of an API request. Twitter probably still has that data, and could check to see who sent a Tweet from Tweetie between a given period of time. Is there the possibility of false positives? Certainly, but it's better than nothing.

but it's better than nothing

Is it? I'd be afraid of a backlash caused by some minority of users who had e.g. bought tweetie but never actually tweeted using it (just for reading tweets or whatever), had changed twitter accounts since, etc., plus the people claiming to be part of this group in an attempt to get something for free or whatever.

Realistically, they're probably going to have to do something about this much-hated "feature" for everyone anyway.

> Realistically, they're probably going to have to do something about this much-hated "feature" for everyone anyway.

The question is though, is it a feature for some? If so, how many? Twitter's audience is huge. A couple thousand vocal users might be on the minority side.

Twitter is big enough now that it's not going to be able to do anything right in the eyes of everyone. But, they have a ton of data about usage patterns, and other data we don't. I'm willing to bet that the decision to include such a "feature" was backed up by real data.

I'm sure they'll release an update to give you the ability to turn off the "feature" of course, and this whole discussion will be pointless.

The Shazam developer collected device IDs, so that beta testers can now install the free version and still get to the things you could do in the beta (unlimited tagging).

So, with a bit of preparation they could have handled Tweetie customers differently in the Twitter app.

Assuming that people still have the same devices as they did two years ago when they bought Tweetie.

Those of us who weren't using twitter at the time shouldn't have to deal with the #dickbar either, add a paid option in general, sure make it free for Tweetie1/2 customers, but provide the option to everyone!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com